Dancin_In_Anson:what_now: It bothered him so much he blew up 168 American citizens?

The sickening irony does not escape me either.

His methods could be criticized, but I am sure his intentions were sincerely patriotic. He was simply doing whatever was in his power to preserve America (Land of the Free and Home of the Brave), by performing an act of resistance against the jackbooted thuggery of the vast left wing liberal conspiracy to subvert the government of the American people, by the American people, and for the American people, and to hand over the reins of power to the UN.

I'm not saying those people individually deserved what they got. But by working for the federal government, they were willing collaborators with the vast left wing conspiracy; little Eichmanns. And in war, collateral damage sometimes happens. McVeigh was trying to blow up a Federal building, it wasn't his fault there were people inside. Isn't that the rationale you libs use when you defend 0bama's cowardly drone strikes?

I'm not necessarily defending McVeigh, not in public. I'm just asking questions. But you can see why, in the face of liberal tyranny, why doing that might have made sense. Assuming it was his idea, and that it wasn't a false flag operation conducted by the CIA, MK-ULTRA, ACORN, and George Soros to justify rounding up real American patriots, of course.

The Muthaship:what_now: But if you start defending the Family Research Counsel, you're going to get pushback.

Not defending them, honestly. I disagree with everything they say. But, I don't think they are a hate group. They are fundies for sure. They believe homosexuality is a sin. They believe same sex marriage is a sin. I still can't find anything credible that said they advocate violence of any kind. The SPLC plays fast and loose with their labeling because it drives donations. Unfortunately, it has consequences, too. And, IMO, it casts them in a bad light.

But considering how the internet has become a giant witchhunt for "racists", I think the goalposts were just moved in a little to make it a little easier. "Racist" now includes not only all republicans, but even nominal independents like myself who value sh*t President Obama doesn't. Like fiscal responsibility, keeping campaign promises, and muh freedoms. Because if you aren't an apologist for Obama's incompetence, you're part of a f*cking hate group.

willfullyobscure:Its really not frank racism. It's a Democrat in the White House. We saw the exact same thing happen blossom under Clinton, though the violent fringe right really started in the early ninities in response to GHWB and "new world order" paranoia,, and it culminated in OKC, Erc Rudoplh and eventually Columbine. (/11 was really what put a stop to it for about a decade, and Obama's election concided with the resurgence of domestic hate groups, but in a macro sense, its not that he's black, although that doesn't hurt, its that he represents a threatening federal power and we don't really have an external enemy to unite us right now. the USA has a long, long history of violent radicalism across the political spectrum and it only ever goes away when we have a moment of cultural unity, like a war or an economic boom that raises everyone's fortunes, and that hasn't happened since the late 70's.

It's almost like the spread of social media does more than just allows hipsters to take pictures of food and post them on them on Instagram. It's not really that big of a deal since by using social media they lose the one strength they had before, anonymity. It's really hard to commit acts of violence when your using Facebook to organize Klan rallies.